diff for duplicates of <20101117165042.GA21729@vigoh> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 3a89b1b..de65d53 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Hi Pavan, * Pavan Savoy <pavan_savoy@sify.com> [2010-11-17 11:04:59 +0530]: > Gustavo, ->=20 +> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Gustavo F. Padovan > <padovan@profusion.mobi> wrote: > > Hi Pavan, @@ -23,19 +23,15 @@ Hi Pavan, > >> HCI_RUNNING fixes in terms of test_and_set/clear bit instead of set and > >> clear. > >> removed redundant checks for hdev, skb being NULL. -> >> removed module_param of reset, also WiLink don't need HCI_RESET anyway= -s. +> >> removed module_param of reset, also WiLink don't need HCI_RESET anyways. > >> removed ti_st_register_dev function and functionality moved to _probe. > >> module_init/exit function names fixed up. > >> > >> stat byte counter increments and tx_complete is similar to hci_ldisc. > >> Also I have not implemented the flush routine, since the functionality -> >> which needs to be done in flush routine is done in the underlying driv= -er -> >> which is the shared transport driver and moreover the btwilink driver = -by -> >> itself doesn't maintains queue or data relevant to transport, so nothi= -ng +> >> which needs to be done in flush routine is done in the underlying driver +> >> which is the shared transport driver and moreover the btwilink driver by +> >> itself doesn't maintains queue or data relevant to transport, so nothing > >> to do. > >> > >> And Yes, I have verified this driver with multiple up/down reset on @@ -46,12 +42,12 @@ ng > > reviewer or reply to patch thread why do you think you right and don't > > want to change that. That is not happening with your patches, you are > > not fixing all the stuff before re-submiting and it is not the first -> > time. =A0If you do it right we can review it fast and your code goes +> > time. If you do it right we can review it fast and your code goes > > earlier to mainline. -> > You should also answer the questions first =A0like "Where is the +> > You should also answer the questions first like "Where is the > > ti_st_proto.write coming from?" You just ignored the > > review and submitted a new patch. ->=20 +> > This is the reason, I tend to keep the patch comments in the mail. > I have mentioned here the > 1. comments I have taken care of, @@ -60,7 +56,7 @@ ng You should reply inline, and not do top posting like this. ->=20 +> > Also the question on ti_st_proto.write, I have answered it twice in > mail, once to you and once to marcel, for more clarity I have even > added it in the code comments, Please have a look @ line @@ -73,7 +69,7 @@ You should reply inline, and not do top posting like this. > uniformity I have this as function pointer. > (Note: comments to other drivers which are based on ST driver intended > read/write to be pointers which register/unregister to be EXPORTs). ->=20 +> > Ok, apart from this there was an open question as why I am checking > for only 2 error conditions, it is because the underlying driver only > can send those 2 errors and nothing else (st_register has few errors @@ -83,6 +79,6 @@ I don't care if it can send only two errors, someone can change the underlying driver and we at the Bluetooth subsystem may never know that. So check for all errors there, instead of two. ---=20 +-- Gustavo F. Padovan http://profusion.mobi diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 33caf14..0dff503 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ "* Pavan Savoy <pavan_savoy@sify.com> [2010-11-17 11:04:59 +0530]:\n" "\n" "> Gustavo,\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Gustavo F. Padovan\n" "> <padovan@profusion.mobi> wrote:\n" "> > Hi Pavan,\n" @@ -35,19 +35,15 @@ "> >> HCI_RUNNING fixes in terms of test_and_set/clear bit instead of set and\n" "> >> clear.\n" "> >> removed redundant checks for hdev, skb being NULL.\n" - "> >> removed module_param of reset, also WiLink don't need HCI_RESET anyway=\n" - "s.\n" + "> >> removed module_param of reset, also WiLink don't need HCI_RESET anyways.\n" "> >> removed ti_st_register_dev function and functionality moved to _probe.\n" "> >> module_init/exit function names fixed up.\n" "> >>\n" "> >> stat byte counter increments and tx_complete is similar to hci_ldisc.\n" "> >> Also I have not implemented the flush routine, since the functionality\n" - "> >> which needs to be done in flush routine is done in the underlying driv=\n" - "er\n" - "> >> which is the shared transport driver and moreover the btwilink driver =\n" - "by\n" - "> >> itself doesn't maintains queue or data relevant to transport, so nothi=\n" - "ng\n" + "> >> which needs to be done in flush routine is done in the underlying driver\n" + "> >> which is the shared transport driver and moreover the btwilink driver by\n" + "> >> itself doesn't maintains queue or data relevant to transport, so nothing\n" "> >> to do.\n" "> >>\n" "> >> And Yes, I have verified this driver with multiple up/down reset on\n" @@ -58,12 +54,12 @@ "> > reviewer or reply to patch thread why do you think you right and don't\n" "> > want to change that. That is not happening with your patches, you are\n" "> > not fixing all the stuff before re-submiting and it is not the first\n" - "> > time. =A0If you do it right we can review it fast and your code goes\n" + "> > time. \302\240If you do it right we can review it fast and your code goes\n" "> > earlier to mainline.\n" - "> > You should also answer the questions first =A0like \"Where is the\n" + "> > You should also answer the questions first \302\240like \"Where is the\n" "> > ti_st_proto.write coming from?\" You just ignored the\n" "> > review and submitted a new patch.\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> This is the reason, I tend to keep the patch comments in the mail.\n" "> I have mentioned here the\n" "> 1. comments I have taken care of,\n" @@ -72,7 +68,7 @@ "\n" "You should reply inline, and not do top posting like this.\n" "\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> Also the question on ti_st_proto.write, I have answered it twice in\n" "> mail, once to you and once to marcel, for more clarity I have even\n" "> added it in the code comments, Please have a look @ line\n" @@ -85,7 +81,7 @@ "> uniformity I have this as function pointer.\n" "> (Note: comments to other drivers which are based on ST driver intended\n" "> read/write to be pointers which register/unregister to be EXPORTs).\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> Ok, apart from this there was an open question as why I am checking\n" "> for only 2 error conditions, it is because the underlying driver only\n" "> can send those 2 errors and nothing else (st_register has few errors\n" @@ -95,8 +91,8 @@ "underlying driver and we at the Bluetooth subsystem may never know that.\n" "So check for all errors there, instead of two.\n" "\n" - "--=20\n" + "-- \n" "Gustavo F. Padovan\n" http://profusion.mobi -d6c3bb3ac7d64c870720a97282eea2f7138908d4649731eb0c80b98031bf8f4a +eff030acb723ab9510982d24c5d14187bc7fb5c4f827b3e7dfd6d3f8e4acaab5
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.